Skip to main content

Evidence-based medicine


"Evidence" that a substance or procedure improved another person's health isn't evidence it will help yours.

Just as "evidence" of the effect of a substance given to a test animal is not evidence it will have the same effect on another test animal or on a human.

We are all unique and what works for one will not work for all.


True evidence-based medicine is medicine that you have used before and that worked for you.

That is evidence.

True evidence only relates to yourself in matters as personal as health. Population studies cannot tell you how this will be. Humans, after all, are not standardized robots, but unique living beings, no two the same.

How this argument would be disputed

People will dispute this by saying certain products have the same effect on everyone.  An example may be a poison that will kill anyone with a certain dosage level.

The reality is: unless every single human who ever lived was used as a test subject we cannot say a substance will effect everyone the same.  And even if all people could be tested, it would not mean someone born tomorrow would be the same.  Changes in human physiology do occur over time. This is called microevolution (evolution within a species).

Second dispute

This negation will be followed up by the idea that, true, we can never be sure of the effect of a substance on a person, but we can be confident because if it affects a high percentage of test subjects in a certain way, it is likely to affect a "random" other person in the same (or similar) way.

Here we are talking about statistics: the notion that what happened to a group of people means something about the likelihood of it occurring to you.

It should be realised this kind of idea is only real in a statistical universe.  It is not meaningful to an actual individual.

For the individual the odds of getting a certain cancer, for example, cannot be calculated.  We just don't know what will happen to an individual person.

The reality is, as far as disease is concerned, the odds of a specific person getting a certain thing cannot be calculated.

We can only truly speak of populations when we discuss statistics, and even then we can only speak of the population we have studied.

To do otherwise would involve making many assumptions which just aren't realistic to make (although statisticians do it themselves all the time out of necessity. We, non statisticians have no such necessity to make such false assumptions of conformity).

Such assumptions include: the sample of people which was tested is fundamentally the same (whatever that means) as the population as a whole.

This is impossible to prove and is pure conjecture used to justify statistical techniques.

Once a person contracts an illness we can say the odds of them receiving the illness as 100%, or P=1.  Until then, we just do not know, due to the uniqueness of the individual.

How this lack of certainty is dealt with

The lack of certainty about how a person will react to a "medicinal" substance is dealt with by letting a patient try a substance, check how it effects them and then move onto another substance if the first one doesn't have the preferred effect.

Eventually either (1) something is found to help the patient, (2) the patient heals himself or herself irrespective of medications, or, (3) the patient dies.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The only meaningful science on vaccines...

Is missing.

What is that science?
Comparing children who receive various regimes of vaccines against those who receive none at all, for a wide variety of health outcomes, over the next 15-20 years of their life, and beyond.
Such studies are not done because they are deemed unethical.

Why unethical? 

Because it is assumed that childhood vaccines do more good than harm, and that the current childhood vaccine schedule is fine, and to deny children vaccines when they are presumed safe and effective would be an act of criminal negligence.
Proof?
None, because it would be "unethical" to complete the studies that would prove this.

Catch-22, anyone?
Therefore, we don't know if these assumptions about safety and effectiveness are true or not.
And we never will, unless such comparative studies are done. 

And such studies would only be meaningful if conducted by someone without a dog in the fight- that is, not aligned with promoting or resisting community vaccine uptake.

And, as anyone…

Conflict is best avoided

Interpersonal conflict wastes valuable time and energy that could be better devoted to other, more fulfilling things.

Our energies are best spent creating a fulfilling life for ourselves and those we care about, not attempting to destroy another person, group or idea.


Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the opinions of others are irrelevant in terms of how we wish to live our lives, and how we wish to interpret reality.


That is, we are under no obligation to listen to others or respond to them in any way.
Our lives are our own to create, and no one else's!


If we share a physical space with others, or trade goods and services with them, we will need to come to agreements, but otherwise our life is our own to create, in any way we see fit.

If others don't share our views or support our choices there is no need to fight them on it.
Instead, we must discover what works best for us and practice it, while allowing others the same freedom.
SHARKA TODD

The governments role in health care

"Let the consumer decide, not the government."
The government has a role in freeing up the healthcare market, making sure it is free of collusion and big firms bullying smaller firms out of the market, and in ensuring the poor have access to adequate health care.
Currently, health care is deeply corrupt in the west, with too few companies controlling the market and with governments only exacerbating the situation by providing market protection for these firms.
The end result is high prices and poor products leading to poor health outcomes.
What needs to happen is opening the health care market up to competition by leveling the playing field with the government getting out of the business of picking winners and losers. That is for consumers to decide as they do in other markets, and is based around branding.
Good products and manufacturers will do well as their brand succeeds in the marketplace, while poor and overpriced products and their providers will disappear.


The level pla…